Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:

: them free of charge. The guys who developed it can stare at RedHat's 
: profit line and wish they had it, but they have nobody to blame but 
: themselves.

It might seem surprising, however, there are people who do not
just look at profit lines. They have different sets of rules
which make them decide that their efforts have or have not been
in vain.

: They voluntarily put up the "sweat equity" in RedHat and 
: didn't get a single share of stock in return. That's their decision and 
: they are the ones that have to live with it.

Interesting questions, to be answered empirically, not by
implying world views, are,
- "Do they feel like they have to live with some loss?"
- "Do they feel just happy?"
- "Is the return higher/lower than expected, in their view?"
- ...

(As for sample data, Bruce Perens' "no return" hobby project was orbitting
in space which seems to have given him more satisfaction than celebrating
some SGI graphics software.)


: The minute someone wants to put it into a product 
: and sell it, I want some piece of the action.

Among humans, that may or may not have something to do with the
license. You can always ask users of your software for compensation.
Some authors of GPLed software do. Some do actually receive money
or other opportunities in return for giving away free software.
Some did, but don't any longer like the author of lcc.

: I think that's basic 
: justice and that's why I wouldn't release anything I wrote under the GPL 
: - unless, possibly, there was a business case to be made as to why this 
: particular piece of software would make me money if released under the GPL.

Can I assume that you consider this a rare opportunity?  Any
figures? If the share of commercially working GPLed products is
shrinking, this might be interpreted to mean that the view that it
won't work (commercially) is turning into a selffulfilling prophecy,
by the usual social mechanisms. And it doesn't matter then that
the interpretation might be wrong.

: Dr. Leif and I disagree on some of the particulars of his ADCL, but we 
: both wholeheartedly agree on the basic concept behind it - that if 
: someone develops software that another party wants to use to make a 
: profit, the developer ought to get something out of it.

If turned into an evil analogy, you will then be mobsters ;-)


Georg